Can you please help me in this claim?

[AAC08]

I read in this source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_of_the_Old_Testament_canon

"Michael Barber asserts that, for Christians, any discussion about the Old Testament canon must start with the question: which books did Jesus and the New Testament recognize? Thus, he asserts that many deem it important to “ascertain whether or not Jesus quoted from the MT or the LXX”. He characterizes the underlying assumption as presuming that there were two rival canons in use during Jesus’ day: a “Palestinian canon” used by Jews in Jerusalem, that contained only the “proto-canonical books” and an “Alexandrian canon” that, it is said, included the apocrypha, which was accepted by Jews in the diaspora. Jesus’ support of the LXX would therefore imply his recognition of the apocrypha. However, Barber argues that this line of reasoning is full of historical misconceptions. Barber asserts that there was no normative canon in Palestinian Judaism in Jesus’ day and that the notion of a universally accepted “Palestinian canon” is a myth that runs counter to the historical evidence. Moreover, he asserts that the Jews in the diaspora were no more united on this issue than their Palestinian counterparts.

Barber points out that the most famous “Alexandrian Jew” of them all, Philo, never once cited from the apocrypha. Finally, Barber emphasizes that, while it is abundantly clear that the apocrypha were eventually included in the Septuagint, there is very little known about the Septuagint that was used in Jesus’ day. Thus, he argues, even if it could be established that Jesus used the Septuagint, this would not necessarily prove that Jesus accepted the deuterocanonical books.

Finally, Barber argues that the whole question of which canon Jesus used is moot though because the citations found in the New Testament do not universally conform to the Masoretic Text or the Septuagint."

 

[Verbum]

Hi AA,

This is a “bible only” position. If the Old Testament has to be approved by the New, then how is the New Testament approved?

We do not accept the books of the bible because they were quoted by Jesus but because they were received by the Church as inspired. In other words, the canon rests on the authority of the Church derived from that of apostles.

Verbum

 

[Kay_Cee]

***Michael Barber asserts that, for Christians, any discussion about the Old Testament canon must start with the question: which books did Jesus and the New Testament recognize? ***

Where in the world did he get this idea? Who granted him the authority to say this is the way the canon should be determined?

 

[ziapueblo]

AA,

The New Testament writers accepted the Septuagint! Almost 90% of Old Testament quotes that are found in the New come from the Septuagint, which of course includes the Deuterocanonical books. This makes sense because the New Testament writers wrote in Greek.

 

[jokster]

magic word - please

seems to me jesus only wanted the best for others seems sensabble to me

 

[puzzleannie]

think we need to re-read the cite about Barber (and it would not hurt to read what he himself wrote). He is not challenging the Church’s canon of scripture, he is rebutting one argument frequently used to insist that the Jewish scripture in common use in Jesus’ day was identical with the Septuagint. Since, as he rightly points out, there was no universal OT canon at that time accepted by all Jewish authorities, that claim does not stand up. He is talking about history, neither canonicity, nor sola scriptura.

 

[Robbinson]

This is very interesting - I had a dream about this last night (literally, this debate over the Septuagint and the Palestinian Cannon), admittedly after studying this out recently.

What I found in my studies is that not only were the DC books included in the Septuagint, which was the version of the Old Testatements scriptures most likely read and studied by Jesus and the apostles - but that the early Church fathers quoted from these books extensively, the early Church counsels (in first 400 years of the Church) included these books in the cannon (notwithstanding Jerome’s translation of the Vulgate omitting them) and that even Protestant bibles (including the King James version) included these books. There formal omission followed the reformation. The councel of Trent formal inclusion of the DC books as cannon was a validation and reaffirmation of a long held tradition from the first 400 years of Church history in reaction to the claims of the reformation - not the first instance of adding books to the Cannon. Significantly, the Protestant breathern rely on the same very Church tradition which designated the DC books as part of the cannon in the first 400 years of Church history for the cannonization of the 66 books of the Bible they accept today.

In addition, in terms of the settlement of the Jewish cannon and omission of the DC books - this occurred after the birth of Christianity in debating the Septuagent v. the Palestinian bible and could clearly have been influenced by the fact that Christianity was then a sect of Judaism and purported (to the Jews) to include not only the DC books, but the gospels as well.

Interestingly, the book of Macabees continues to be revered within Judaism - it is the story of the descretation of the temple and heroic rededication of the temple that tells the story of Chanukkah which appears nowhere else in scripture (other than the NT, of course) and the traditions, contained within these books (e.g., prayers for the dead) have continued as traditions within Judaism to this day.

Blessings,

Brian